Global Warming: Fact or Fiction

Global Warming: Fact or Fiction Global Warming: Science or Scam Global warming and climate change are two of the most significant challenges that face humankind in the 21st century. At least, that is, if global warming and impending climate change are really occurring. There are those who contend that global warming and impending climatic change are clandestine fabrications made by a hidden elite as a pre-text to frighten the populace in order to further some hidden political and/or economic agenda. The argument postulates that the climate change scientists are currently warning us about is vastly overstated, if not alarmist, and that the current warming trend is nothing more than a temporary feature in the natural long-term fluctuation of the Earths climate. If this is indeed true, it would represent a fundamental breakdown in the system by which the condition of our world is evaluated and brings into question the degree of trust that we hold in the scientific community and the reliability of the research that is conducted and presented in their name. I will attempt to shed some light on that debate. The issue revolves around two fundamental questions. - Is the Earth getting warmer? - If it is, is that warming a function of natural cyclical variations in temperature over time or is it a consequence of human activities? Is the Earth Getting Warmer? The evidence supporting global warming comes from the following areas: - Temperature records taken from 1850 - Satellite measurements taken from 1979 - Sea level rise in the twentieth century - Proxy records - Glacial melt Temperature records have been independently taken since 1850 by NOAA, NASA (and its preceding organizations), HADCRU and JMA. All four report essentially the same data and the data is unambiguous. The Earth is warmer by over a degree than it was in 1850. One degree may seem insignificant but temperature changes of just a few degrees have affected the Earth’s climate dramatically, historically. Measurements taken from weather satellites since 1979 reveal a clear increase in tropospheric pressures since the collection of the initial data. The data is unambiguous. Source: IPCC The sea level has risen 7 inches since 1870 when this dataset was first collected. This rise has occurred following 2000 years in which there was no significant change. The data is unambiguous. Source: CSIRO Proxy records are sophisticated ways of inferring surface temperatures over previous centuries and millennia. Taken together, these independent records show widespread warming over the 20th century, with a particularly sharp uptick in temperature over the last few decades. Source: National Acadamies While proxy records are, by definition, not as accurate or precise as direct measurements, they provide a robust picture of thousands of years of the Earth's history. Three main types of proxy records used to create this picture are: • Ice Cores: One proxy method is to drill into glaciers and ice sheets to extract ice samples. Since the ice was formed from snow that fell over the centuries, the deeper you drill, the farther back in time you are looking. The chemical composition of the ice correlates very strongly with temperature. Scientists have constructed temperature records from ice cores taken from Tibetan and Andean glaciers, an ice cap in the Canadian Arctic, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. These records show that, at low latitudes, 20th century climate was unusually warm compared to the previous 2,000 years. In the Canadian Arctic, warming over the past 150 years is unprecedented compared to the previous millennium. In Greenland and coastal Antarctica, there is clear evidence of warming over the past century. Ice cores from Antarctica's interior, however, do not show warming over the past century. • Tree rings: In temperate regions, trees generally produce one ring a year, and some tree species are extremely long-lived. (A bristlecone pine, for example, can live more than 4,000 years.) Patterns in the width and density of tree rings provide year-by-year temperature information. Scientists have tree ring records from more than 2,000 sites on all inhabited continents, though most of the records are from temperate areas of the Northern Hemisphere. These records show that 20th century warming was unusual compared to at least the past 500 years. • Coral reefs: Corals build their hard skeletons with annual bands of calcium carbonate. The geochemical composition of each annual band varies depending on the temperature of the water at the time the band was formed. Scientists have coral proxy records from the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific oceans, with most of these going back 400 years. Coral proxy records indicate sea surface warming in most tropical locations over the past century. The data speaks for itself. On the whole, the Earth is clearly warming. Still, there is one area of continuing debate, the issue of glacial melt. Most scientists contend that there is clear evidence for the loss of glacial mass over the past century and particularly over the last decade, which would be expected if air temperatures were truly increasing globally. However, this position is not unanimously held. Comparative photography of glaciers in Alaska and Glacier National Park clearly show dramatic glacial retreat over the last several decades. Could the glacial melt in Alaska and Glacier National Park be resulting from some regional phenomenon? There are those who claim that the worlds glaciers overall are in fact actually advancing and not retreating despite these regional effects. If it is really true that the worlds glaciers are actually advancing and not retreating, then the broader data supporting a warming Earth would necessarily be brought into question. So whats really going on here? In my research, the most widely quoted supporting data for the advancing glacier position is from the renowned botanist, David Bellamy. Bellamy primarily cites data from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland that indicates that of the 625 glaciers under their observation, 555 have been determined to have grown over the last century. Frankly, this came as a shock to me. How can the warming Earth data be reconciled with increasing glaciation? It doesn't make sense. So what is going on here? In an attempt to answer this question, I found an independent query made by researcher Coby Beck to the World Glacier Monitoring Service and it reveals an altogether different position by that organization. In short, they state the following, "Despite Bellamy’s scientific reputation, he has made all the mistakes that are possible. He has cited data that was simply false, he has failed to provide references and he has completely misunderstood the scientific context and neglected current scientific literature. The latest studies show unequivocally that most of the world's glaciers are retreating.” Here is the complete quote: “…The figures that Bellamy cited must have come from somewhere. I emailed him to ask for his source. After several requests, he replied to me at the end of last week. The data, he said, came from a website called www.iceagenow.com. Iceagenow was constructed by a man called Robert W Felix to promote his self-published book about "the coming ice age". It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the "ice age cycle"; and that "underwater volcanic activity - not human activity - is heating the seas. Is Felix a climatologist, a volcanologist or an oceanographer? Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a "former architect". His website is so bonkers that we thought at first it was a spoof. Sadly, he appears to believe what he says. But there, indeed, was all the material that Bellamy cited in his letter, including the figures - or something resembling the figures - he quoted. "Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich." The source, which Bellamy also cited in his email to me, was given as "the latest issue of 21st Century Science and Technology". 21st Century Science and Technology? It sounds impressive, until you discover that it is published by Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche is the American demagogue who in 1989 received a 15-year sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax-code violations. He has claimed that the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate, that Henry Kissinger is a communist agent, that the British government is controlled by Jewish bankers, and that modern science is a conspiracy against human potential. It wasn't hard to find out that this is one of his vehicles: LaRouche is named on the front page of the magazine's website, and the edition Bellamy cites contains an article beginning: "We in LaRouche's Youth Movement find ourselves in combat with an old enemy that destroys human beings ... it is empiricism." Oh well, at least there is a source for Bellamy's figures. But where did 21st Century Science and Technology get them from? It doesn't say. But I think we can make an informed guess, for the same data can be found all over the internet. They were first published online by Professor Fred Singer, one of the very few climate change deniers who has a vaguely relevant qualification (he is, or was, an environmental scientist). He posted them on his website, www.sepp.org, and they were then reproduced by the appropriately named junkscience.com, by the Cooler Heads Coalition, the US National Centre for Public Policy Research and countless others. They have even found their way into the Washington Post. They are constantly quoted as evidence that man-made climate change is not happening. But where did they come from? Singer cites half a source: "A paper published in Science in 1989." Well, the paper might be 16 years old, but at least, and at last, there is one. Surely? We went through every edition of Science published in 1989, both manually and electronically. Not only did it contain nothing resembling those figures, throughout that year there was no paper published in this journal about glacial advance or retreat. So it wasn't looking too good for Bellamy, or Singer, or any of the deniers who have cited these figures. But there was still one mystery to clear up. While Bellamy's source claimed that 55% of 625 glaciers are advancing, Bellamy claimed that 555 of them - or 89% - are advancing. This figure appears to exist nowhere else. But on the standard English keyboard, 5 and % occupy the same key. If you try to hit %, but fail to press shift, you get 555, instead of 55%. This is the only explanation I can produce for his figure. When we challenged him, he admitted that there had been "a glitch of the electronics". So, in Bellamy's poor typing, we have the basis for a whole new front in the war against climate science. The 555 figure is now being cited as definitive evidence that global warming is a "fraud", a "scam", a "lie". We phoned New Scientist to ask if Bellamy had requested a correction. He had not. It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. You must, if you are David Bellamy, embrace instead the claims of an eccentric former architect, which are based on what appears to be a non-existent data set. And you must do all this while calling yourself a scientist.” So what about Antarctica? Data supports the conclusion that the Antarctic ice-sheets are actually growing. How is that possible if global warming is real? It appears to me that there may be some truth to this, but in a limited way. Scientists have indeed reported that that the East Antarctic Sheet might be growing. However, that conclusion was made with the caveat that the data was a regional phenomenon and that the conclusion was equivocal. In essence, there conclusion was that this was an unconfirmed regional trend and that, even if true, did not necessarily indicate that the greater Antarctica ice pack was growing and that the phenomenon could not be used to make a global inference. Indeed, this weak piece of evidence may no longer even be current. Recent results from NASA's GRACE experiment that measured the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, appears to indicate that on the whole, ice mass is actually being lost. The final conclusion, based across all of the data, is that between 1961 and 1997, the world's glaciers lost at least 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures were the most important factor behind this loss of mass. That conclusion, in addition to the overall conclusion that global warming is real, is authored and supported by a vast list of respected scientific organizations. Check it out for yourself, here are just a few examples to get you started: • National Academies' Joint Statement [PDF] (includes G8 and 5 other countries) • American Association for the Advancement of Science • American Meteorological Society • American Geophysical Union • American Statistical Association I personally cannot make the argument here because I am not a climatologist. But I can make the case that it is not necessary to be a climatologist to understand their conclusions and so I strongly recommend that you research this yourself and draw your own conclusions. In my book, they were not ambiguous in any way whatsoever. So far as I can tell, the vast preponderance of climatologists and scientists that are qualified to entertain this discussion state unequivocally that global warming is a fact. Frankly, I can’t cite them all because I simply don’t have enough time and I suspect that it would be challenging for even the most dedicated researcher to find the time to read them all. But, so far as I could tell, this is the conclusion and the evidence supporting that conclusion appears to simply be overwhelming, by any measure that I am aware of. Furthermore, I looked very carefully for any evidence that supported or (for that matter) even hinted at the presence of some hidden agenda by the scientific community in the promulgation, presentation and interpretation of their data. I could find none that panned out and that appeared worthy of mention, at least in my mind. This, of course, does not mean that it doesn’t exist. But if it does, it must be well hidden and represent a conspiracy that runs through many disciplines, organizations and individuals at many levels. I did, however, find what appeared to be clear evidence, at the very least, of poor methodology and documentation if not a concerted effort by business interests to protect their individual assets in the advancement of the opposing view. Nevertheless, if you have any evidence to support these claims, I would be very interested in hearing them, and if they are valid, I will certainly post them. If you wish to challenge the conclusions that I draw, I should be an easy mark as I am clearly not an expert on the topic. So, bring it on as they say, but I will not accept rhetoric, hearsay or unsupported conjecture because this is simply too important a topic for that. So... Is Global Warming a Function of Natural Cyclical Planetary Variations or is it a Consequence of Human Activities? The theory of global warming is nothing new. The Nobel Prize-winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first proposed the idea of global warming in 1896. Carbon dioxide, he knew, traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere. He also knew that burning coal and oil releases carbon dioxide (CO2). Arrhenius speculated that continued burning of coal and oil would increase concentrations of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, making the planet warmer. It's called the "greenhouse effect." What warms the Earth? To determine what is causing today's rapid global warming, scientists have examined all the factors that can affect the Earth's temperature. There are essentially three factors that could be responsible for recent rapid global warming: 1. The sun 2. Earth's reflectivity 3. Greenhouse gases Which of these is causing our current global warming? It's not the sun: cause of little warming since 1750, none since 1980s Ultimately, the climate system is powered by the sun: all else being equal, if you turn up the sun, you'll warm up the Earth. According to IPCC estimates, the sun has accounted for just a small portion of warming since 1750. A study of more recent solar activity has demonstrated that since about 1985 the sun has changed in ways that, if anything, should have cooled the planet—even as global temperatures have been rising. So the sun is not causing global warming. Solar Activity Doesn't Match Temperature Rise Global surface temperature has risen without a net increase in solar energy. Source: NOAA/NCDC; Frolich and Lean; Willson and Mordvinov; Dewitte et. al. via GlobalChange.gov It's not reflectivity: changes point to cooling, not warming Around 30% of the sun's energy that reaches the Earth is reflected back into space. Changes in how much sunlight is absorbed, and how much is reflected, can affect global temperatures. Using satellite and land-based observations and computer models, scientists have calculated how Earth's reflectivity has changed over time. These calculations suggest that human-produced particulate pollution, especially reflective sulfur-containing particles, have had a cooling effect on the climate, masking some of the warming effect of greenhouse gases. In fact, the slight decrease in global temperature between 1945 and 1975 was likely caused by a combination of rising particulate pollution and natural factors. Warming resumed after 1975 when industrialized countries began to clean up their particulate pollution while continuing to increase their greenhouse gas emissions. As for human land use changes (primarily forest clearing for agriculture), they have on balance brightened the planet since 1750. This would have a cooling effect, yet we've seen warming. Changes in the frequency of volcanic eruptions, which can send reflective particles up into the stratosphere, also cannot explain the observed warming trend. So reflectivity is not causing global warming. Satellite Measurement of Earth's Reflectivity Satellite measurements like the one below from April 7-22, 2002 enable scientists to understand how surface features can affect climate trends. Source: NASA Earth Observatory All the evidence points to greenhouse gases That leaves the greenhouse effect as the only remaining scientific explanation for the rise in global temperatures in recent decades. We have direct measurements of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere going back more than 50 years, and indirect measurements (from ice cores) going back hundreds of thousands of years. These measurements confirm that concentrations are rising rapidly. Historic CO2 Levels The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than at any time in measurable history, and predicted to increase dramatically this century. Source: GlobalChange.gov Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 800,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) We also know the additional CO2 in the atmosphere comes mainly from coal and oil, because the chemical composition of the CO2 contains a unique "fingerprint." As far as scientists are concerned, it's case closed: human activity is causing the Earth to get warmer, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, with a smaller contribution from deforestation. All other scientific explanations for why the Earth is getting warmer have been eliminated. World View of Human Impact on Temperature Since 1900 Continental and global temperatures modeled with and without human influence show the impact of human activity on global warming. Source: IPCC 2007: WG1 AR4 Figure SPM.4 All in all, the evidence does not seem to be murky, unclear or confused, in fact it seems to be quite clear. Based upon my research, the data reveals virtually unambiguously that the Earth is warming and that the warming is severe and accelerating. Furthermore, the vast preponderance of data point to the clear conclusion that the warming is directly related to human activities and not to some natural fluctuation in the environment. The computer models that project the impact upon the climate have (up to now) proved to be generally accurate and, when they were off, they tended to be off in the conservative direction, by under representing the consequences. The body of those conclusions are chilling. Climate change is not impending, it is currently well underway and when compared to previous sudden climatic events in the historical past that were not associated with cataclysmic occurrence, it is unprecedented in its rapidity and severity. In fact, the current pattern of climatic change appears far more similar to the documented patterns of sudden climatic shift that have occurred following ancient examples of ecological catastrophe than any example of natural variation, no matter how extreme. If that is indeed true, then we face a very uncertain and potentially bleak future. Indeed, the long-term consequences of the current climate change are projected to be disastrous in scope and there is precious little time left to slow these consequences, if indeed it is not already to late. A list of some of those consequences are included in the letter to Presidents Obama and Hu that follows. It seems starkly evident that only immediate and dramatic steps taken in concert by the unified and committed governments of the entire Earth can stave off a tragedy of the highest order. There simply could not be a more seminal and crucial period. Given that apparent reality, it is profoundly disturbing to me that so much energy continues to be committed to the task of confusing the public on this issue. Can it not be seen as obvious that any short-term financial gain (regardless of its scope) that is made by any self-interested government, by any callous corporation or by any profiteering individual will necessarily be nullified and rendered irrelevant by the economic catastrophe that will occur necessarily later on? I cannot help but to wonder why it is, in large measure, that the various governments, corporations and peoples of the world continue to go on about there business as if this impending disaster really were a delusion; as if it will somehow all go away if we just keep working hard (with our collective heads in the sand). It seems as though that we have made some quiet acknowledgment that the problem is far to big for us to face; as if we are betting our last buck on some last minute salvation. Perhaps we are all quietly hoping to be saved by some amazing new technological breakthrough or by virtue of some extraordinary and unprecedented act of divine or extraterrestrial intervention. Perhaps. Perhaps, but I don't think so. I ask you, do you really think so? Does it not seem that we are our best hope, if not our only hope? We are in desperate trouble. We need our leaders to be immediately responsive to the very real and grave threat that now confronts us and if they fail to be aggressive enough in meeting that challenge, then we will need to move aggressively to remind them of whom it is that they ultimately answer. If action comes to slowly, then it may be necessary to move our leaders to action by irresistibly guiding them in that direction. It has always proved to be true that when the people choose to lead, the leaders have had no choice but to follow. Since the worlds leadership must be more active and efficient than they have ever been before, we must therefore be more active and efficient than we have ever been before. Our house is burning, so to speak, and we really have no choice but to act together on this one because in the end, only fools would fight in a burning house. Please print out the following letter and sign it along with as many others as is reasonably possible. Mail the letter to the White House as well as to your local and state representatives. It might well be the most important thing that you ever did. OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA & PRESIDENT HU JINTAO January 19, 2011 The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20003 Dear President Barack Obama & President Hu Jintao: It is time to publicly acknowledge that the continued burning of fossil fuels threatens the survival of civilization. The science is incontrovertible on this fact, yet the response from government is business as usual. Our two nations dominate world carbon emissions. No civilization has survived the ongoing destruction of its natural support systems, nor will ours. It is with a deepening sense of dread over the fate of future generations that we call on you to acknowledge the severity of the global climate emergency by placing climate stabilization at the top of your policy agendas. According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, 2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year in recorded history. Last year was also the wettest on record in terms of global average precipitation, according to the Global Historical Climatology Network, with devastating impacts felt across the globe. Estimates by the World Health Organization are that the Earth's warming climate contributes to more than 150,000 deaths each year. Here's what else we're facing: • Crop-withering heat waves • A melting Greenland ice sheet that threatens to raise sea level 23 feet • Fires transforming carbon-storing tropical rainforests into carbon emitters • Ocean acidification imperiling the base of the seafood chain • Melting glaciers in the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau threatening the dry season irrigation water supplies - and food security - of hundreds of millions of people • Ever-deadlier storms creating growing numbers of climate refugees • Scientists predicting 1/5 of living species being driven toward extinction by mid-century This is just the beginning. Nature tells us time is running out, but we can't see the clock. As we blindly reach critical climate "tipping points," things promise to get worse, much worse. Central to the solution is a wartime-like mobilization by the governments of the United States and China to cut carbon emissions 80 percent (based on 2006 levels) by 2020. This is required if we are to reduce carbon emissions to 350 parts per million in the atmosphere, the level top climate scientists say is safe for humanity. There is no more important measure of presidential leadership than living up to the expectations of our children to protect their future. Every day our respective governments fail to act, their future grows more perilous. We await your response. Sincerely, Lester Brown, President, Earth Policy Institute Rev. Sally G. Bingham, President, The Regeneration Project & Interfaith Power & Light Brent Blackwelder, President Emeritus, Friends of the Earth David Blittersdorf, President/CEO, AllEarth Renewables, Inc. Jan Blittersdorf, President/CEO, NRG Systems, Inc. Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club Lisa Daniels, Executive Director, Windustry Brock Evans, President, Endangered Species Coalition Ross Gelbspan, Author Paul Hawken, Author Randy Hayes, Executive Director, Foundation Earth & Founder, Rainforest Action Network Courtney Hight, Co-Director, Energy Action Coalition Julia Butterfly Hill, Co-Founder, The Engage Network* Chuck Kutscher, Former Chair, American Solar Energy Society & Principal Engineer, National Renewable Energy Laboratory* Eric Lombardi, Executive Director, Eco-Cycle Bill McKibben, Founder, 350.org Erich Pica, President, Friends of the Earth Phil Radford, Executive Director, Greenpeace Kieran Suckling, Executive Director, Center for Biological Diversity Rebecca Tarbotton, Executive Director, Rainforest Action Network Mike Tidwell, Director, Chesapeake Climate Action Network James A. Walker, Former President, American Wind Energy Association Tom Weis, President, Climate Crisis Solutions Michael Nielson, Author

Traveling in Time

Traveling in Time

.. ..These notions were derived from lucid dreaming and are intended to promote thought only....

.. ..A 'being', by definition, is a traveler in time. From the 'A' to the 'e' in the last sentence, you moved forward in linear time to garner meaning from the symbols. 'Being' is to experience in sequentiality; pure-consciousness is to experience in simultaneity Every instant experienced as a 'being' is a decision of what to do, most of these decisions are made by the soul in an innate fashion...but a daily handful are made by the ego-self ...and it is these that comprise the motions of the life of a 'being'...of you. Each instant is simply 'you' placing a frame into the movie that is what you now see yourself to be. Every possible motion that you might make is already known in the timelessness of the ALL-Consciousness. 'Time' is the connection point between Universes...the Universe of the 'then' and the Universe of the 'now'. You are confronted at every instant with the enormity of 'all-possibility' and so the essence of your life is the totality of the moment to moment 'decisions' of what Universes to visit. Each 'soul' experiences every possible decision and expression in the endless replaying of each corporeal life. We, acting as independent sentient consciousness, are the answers to the 'what if's' pondered by the whole. What happens in the story of each life is of far less consequence then the motivations for each choice made by the ego-self. Time, therefore, is a river flowing between the infinity of the all-possible...of all possible Universes to see... with you as the guardian and the meander-maker of the river bank. ....

.. ..Infinite movement is exactly equal to no movement at all; for there is no need. This is the loop that constitutes the illusion; the illusion of space and time and form. Infinite is the same as zero. This is most easily illustrated through the concept of velocity. The greater the maximum allowable velocity (light 'speed'), the larger the harboring Universe. However, as soon as your velocity becomes 'infinitely' fast, you no longer need to travel; you are already there. There is no need to travel because there is no 'between'. ....

.. ..Consciousness is 'light'. Light that is unlimited in its true form; it is infinite. It is the 'all-essence'...but its knowing of itself is established by the formation of illusions of limitation; divine daydreams of the many 'what if's'. Time is the necessary byproduct of 'limitation'; indeed it is the fundamental first form of limitation. Light, in its natural illimitable state of expression, exists in concurrence and in simultaneity with all other light; all harmoniously existing in the same 'space'...in essence it has unlimited velocity ...or, if you prefer, no need for velocity at all. When a maximum velocity is considered, light is then made separate from all other light by the 'between' thus formed. Consciousness is 'slowed' and given boundary and thus necessarily forms space within which it may exist. Time may be defined as the experiential moments required to cross the 'between' at any known velocity. But time is also a function of the consciousness of the perceiver. Be you mayfly, human or ancient pine your perception of any experience is 'known' by the vibrational attunement of your current expression of consciousness; each experiences a 'moment' differently. Indeed, there is consciousness in all things with the vibration of that consciousness slowing as its 'life-span' expands and its interactivity decreases. The 'life-span' of helium, lets say, is precisely equivalent to the life-span of the harboring Universe; it is indeed a component of the 'being' that is the Universe itself. Its 'life', if you will, is experiential but it is passive consciousness; silent awareness. It is the totality of the small and endlessly multitudinous components of passive consciousness that, when placed together into an interactive system, erupt into sentience. The Universe is alive and ponders itself, although the nature of that conscious thought would be alien to us. We, in a sense are the vehicle by which the Universe understands itself in much the same way that the Universe(s) (and 'Us' by extension) are vehicles by which the All-consciousness may understand ITself. ....

.. ..The concept of 'mass' is merely the break on the vehicle of light. Mass is directly related to velocity. The faster you travel, the more mass you have. Once you reach light speed, your mass becomes infinite. It becomes, therefore, zero; singularity… and the Universe morphs from 'thing' to its true nature…a thought in timelessness. The velocity of light is altered by changing its relationship to mass. The curvature of space is made greater as the point of singularity is decreased. If infinite mass was associated with 60 mph as opposed to 186,000 mps, then you could climb into your Buick and drive into the lap of God.....

Can we travel back in time? Well, yes…in a way. Time always moves forward, even when it moves backward. If I walk halfway to the store and then turn around and come back, I am still moving forward even though I am going back across the same space that I traveled. If I decide, and discover how, to go back in time to 1946, say to kill my Grandmother (a horrifying thought), my thought and motion will move me forward into another Universe; a Universe precisely identical in linear history to the Universe I departed from on my journey…but in 1946. Indeed, for all intents and purposes, I will be in my past at the moment of my arrival but the introduction of "me" into the Universe at that moment causes this Universe to veer off and become its own reality. Thus, I will find myself as a stowaway from the 'what might happen', but this Universe will not play out as did the Universe of my memory and so my knowledge of what stocks to buy and what places to avoid may or may not be of benefit to me. I will, presumably, then carry out my evil plan and kill my Grandmother and I will not be born…in my new Universe. I will live out my days in witness to a world that took place without me as a youth. The originating Universe, on the other hand, will go on its merry way, unaffected, but fascinated by my mysterious disappearance. Paradoxes are merely 'what ifs' disallowed the 'why'.....

Time and space are timeless thought dissected. There is no need to travel back in time to experience an event from a different perspective because we were always destined to do that. The essence of what we are behind the guise is enormous beyond physical comprehension. We are far more than travelers in time. We are far more then helpless leafs trapped in the eddy's and currents of its stream. We are the leaf, the water and the current...all. Time is merely the stage of the play of "Us". We are the unfolder of the drama; pure love pondering the otherwise. ....

Michael Nielson 'A Novel Thought and the Art of Lucid Dreaming' ©Copyright 2008. All rights reserved including, but not limited to, the right of reproduction in whole or in part or in any other form.....

Prejudice and Appearance

These Notions were derived from lucid dreams and are designed to promote thought only

Appearance and Prejudice

When all the colors of the rainbow are added together, they become crystalline. The “All and the Everything” of the concept of color, is no color whatsoever. To have color is to be only a slice of the whole. Thus, to understand the totality of pure light, one must traverse the entirety of the rainbow. Each of us is a color unlike any other; a hue of sparkling irreproducible splendor that glints only for a brief flash in time. We are an irreplaceable piece of the whole… but at the deepest level, we are also the whole itself.

We are all made of the same fundamental and indivisible material and so in the most basic sense we are exactly identical. We are consciousness that has given itself a form and a sense of self…a sense of separateness. Indeed, we are…each other. The only truth possible is that we are exactly equal. To consider another to be “lesser than” or, alternatively, to consider ones own self to be “greater than” is, either way the same, an act of fearfulness; the fear of being alone. The karma of fear tends to manifest the very potential that causes that fear. To be insecure or arrogant and conceited tends to result in the same thing…loneliness.

We are each an expression of every other. The charade of separateness and difference allows for the eruption of the illusion of the “better than”. Extraordinary attractiveness seems a gift on the surface but it is, in truth, a great challenge for the spirit. It is precisely the same as being…”lesser”. It is just another expression of being…different. We all are attracted to the confident, respectful, humble other. But is it not especially true when we see that expression in a being that the immediate environment has defined as extraordinarily beautiful…or…, equally, extraordinarily ”not beautiful”? Either way, whether gorgeous or repellant, it is just…”us” teaching ourselves that we are precisely the same as every other at our core.

The karma of seeing beyond the shell is the thing of truest beauty. Remember, the beautiful person who shunned you is just you when you last shunned someone because they were not attractive to you. The person you found ugly is just you wishing that someone, just some-one, would read your poetry and not pre-judge it by the scars on your face.

Ultimately, it takes many of us to form a rainbow…but it takes all of us, together, to form pure light.

© 2009 Michael Nielson, “A Novel Thought and the Art of Lucid Dreaming”

The Elegant Equation

Chapter 32

The Elegant Equation

What I have to say in this final chapter is not an extrapolation from a dream and yet it is born from all of mine….not the dreams found in sleep but rather my dreams of a better world and a better life. It was born of the deep sorrow felt by a seemingly helpless witness to the squandering of an unspeakably beautiful world and a sad father who could not find his son. It was born from the rather Earthly hope that I might contribute to the saving of my son’s future and the hope that he might see me as…special; that he would see what I was doing from wherever he was. It was perfectly…human. What began as a journey to save others ended as a journey that saved only…me.

It began for me with a simple equation that I could not stop thinking about. It was an equation authored by a beautiful, compassionate man with a blazing intellect and a deep desire to understand the Universe; a man who spent his entire life trying to identify a simple equation that explained…”everything” and that, I think, had hoped might prove the existence of “intelligent design”. That man was Albert Einstein.

Professor Einstein died feeling that he had failed but I say that he did not fail. I say that the very answer that he struggled for during all those years existed in an equation that he authored early on in his life. I say that, like Dorothy’s ruby slippers, the answer was there all along; both for him and for us. That equation is “E=MC²”.

This equation is already recognized by many to be the most important equation that has ever been written and, if it isn’t that, then it is undoubtedly the most famous. But I think it is even more than that. I think that there is something truly elegant and simple hidden within this equation. I think that there is something beautiful there; something….amazing.

Essentially, E=MC² establishes the relationship between energy and “material”. It states that “energy” is exactly equal to “mass that is in motion”. The equation is composed of three variables… “Energy”, “Mass” and “Velocity”. This equation is the basis for all modern physics but it does not unite the four basic forces of the Universe, which are defined by physicists as electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and…gravity. Known as a “Grand Unified Theory”, identifying a concise relationship between these forces (basically a relationship between the enormously large and the enormously small) is the holy grail of modern conceptual physics. E=MC² does not, in and of itself, unite these forces in an equation. However, I think that what is hidden underneath it transcends the need.

The reason why physicists have been in search of a grand unified theory is for the purpose of identifying the precise sequence of events that occurred at the very instant of the emergence of our Universe and perhaps even “before”. The scientists keep telling us that they are getting a little closer with each “breakthrough” but the Grand Unified Theory remains elusive. In fact, many physicists contend that current mathematics simply “break down” as you get closer to the moment of the “big bang”…or the creation, if you prefer, and have resigned themselves to the need of “new physics”. The idea that math can only go so far resonates with me intuitively somehow. I mean, can you imagine having to prove your love to your new lover by providing an equation that articulated the exact neuronal synaptic firing sequence of love? I think I would prefer a hug. Don’t get me wrong, I have the deepest respect for these dedicated scientists. I just think that maybe the solution of understanding the moment of the big bang and what lies “before” it fundamentally transcends mathematics. My sense (not very scientific, I know) is that mathematics is a construct of the Universe itself and not necessarily of where and what it came from. I think the answer is more like a laugh than a relationship between numbers. How do we explain the elements of the instrument that caused the eruption of the need for all mathematics with…uh, mathematics, no matter how exotic or inspired? After all, Einstein always envisioned that the solution would be...elemental. So here is my thought.

E=MC² has been validated time and time again; experiment after experiment. It is the mathematics behind atomic energy, relativity theory and also quantum mechanics. It is as close to a “fact” as any theory can come, even evolution itself. That same equation has ultimately also led physicists to the conclusion that our Universe erupted, in a cosmic flash (the “big bang”) from something physicists call a “singularity”. A singularity is a “thing” with infinite mass but no volume whatsoever and where time itself is suspended. This is a fascinating concept…think about it. “It” is a thing that exists outside and independent of “time” and “space” and yet it is the origin of time and space itself. Singularity does not arise from Universes, Universes arise from it. Universes are a subset of it. The singularity, therefore, contains within itself everything that “is”, “will be” or “ever was” from within the Universes that arose from it. You see, a Universe is merely a construct of space and time where “energy” somehow “creates”…creates more than what it just was; where it…creates itself.

It is more than interesting that, according to physicists, there are precisely and exactly four fundamental forces in the Universe and that each one of those four forces are manifested by one of the only four massless particles known to exist. Electromagnetism is a consequence of the creative energy of the “photon”; the weak nuclear force is a consequence of the creative energy of the “W vector boson”; the strong nuclear force is a consequence of the creative energy of the “gluon” and gravity is a consequence of the creative energy of the “graviton”. The relationship between “the fundamental force” and “the massless particle” is no coincidence. A massless particle, by definition exists outside of the realm of time. So you see, everything that gives our Universe substance and depth and dimensionality exists, at all times and in every way, as a consequence of the movement of timeless consciousness. These “particles” only appear to be “inside” our Universe as a consequence of their function. But the very fact that they are “massless” and “timeless” inescapably reveals that they are infinite. From our perspective there must be trillions upon trillions of massless particles. There are not. There can be no multitude where there is no space. They exist as a consequence of a single creative force that is merely enjoying the passing notion of a horde. Furthermore, there can be no “distinction between” in the realm of the infinite. Gluons, photons, W vector bosons and gravitons are all precisely the same thing; a single “particle”…a single “force”…a single consciousness. It is only our perspective of these things that cause them to appear…”different”. The force that allows molecules to form is electromagnetism; molecular glue is not material, it is nothing more nor less than…light; the very same force that holds together atoms and…stars and…you. To attempt to calculate the infinite is an adventure into the absurd because “infinite” does not and cannot exist here. Every attempt will yield the answer of…zero…because that is the precise value of an “infinite” quanta. The variables are…phantasms of timelessness. Without the creative force of the timeless mind to hold atoms…and molecules…and stars…and galaxies together, there is nothing physical. Indeed, we ourselves would merely morph into what we truly are…the timeless mind itself.

When you remove time from the Universe…in an attempt to apply E=MC² to the “singularity”, the equation necessarily changes. Velocity no longer exists because there are no distances to traverse and mass becomes…infinite…and, as discussed previously, “infinite” is precisely equal to zero. In other words, mass is as much a chimera as time and space. All that is left, therefore…is energy. But it is more than mindless energy like a charge in a battery; it is a creative force; … creative energy. It has to be creative. Since… “IT”… ultimately is the origination point for all Universes then all Universes are necessarily made of …“IT”… and Universes are certainly creative. I mean the very notion that human beings evolved from elemental particles is creative in the extreme, don’t you think? Think about this for a moment, particles adrift in a silent expanding space that organized themselves into…the Mona Lisa, spiraling footballs, frogs and….YOU. So what ever this “energy” is, it is certainly creative. All that is left when time is suspended is “creative energy” by whatever name you choose to call it.

The elegant equation is therefore simply…”E=E”.

Everything is ultimately a manifestation of creative energy which exists in its truest expression in a timeless expanse…without form or volume…and it is our place of origin. No matter what value you assign to “E”, the equation always reduces to one.

In the “singularity”, all that occurs does so in concurrence. Everything that could be or has been…simply…”is”. All knowledge and all experience exists as a single timeless thought; every particle and every piece, every triumph and every tear; every motion and every meaning, every star and every galaxy and…most assuredly, every one…of you, and all of the endless lives that compose and comprise…you.

We are all precisely the same at our innermost but our physical construction and our role are different. It is simple, if our life is one of love, than that is what we shall know; if our life is one of fear, than we will live a life of fear. So if the “singularity” is the repository of all possible experience, then why do we…need to experience? The answer, I think, is that we ARE that repository. Our experiences ARE that knowledge. Our life experiences are a part of the whole…and the whole would not be whole without them. The knowledge of why not to war exists built upon the tragedy of warfare. The knowledge of why not to harm another is because you are simply harming yourself. As I have said several times in this book, the beings that enjoy torture will cease torturing others when they themselves tire of being tortured. We are the creative force learning of the great responsibility that accompanies being that. We can exist for the flash that is this corporeal existence as companions in a peaceful and equitable world or we can extinguish the world altogether. Either way, the experience is ALREADY known even though, from our perspective, we are currently learning it. The world of tomorrow is precisely up to you…to us.

As I have said in all of my writing, my ideas are intended to promote thought only, so take what you will and leave the rest. Truth is the experience itself, of whatever experience you chose to be truthful about. Explanations of that truth are analogies; they are not themselves the experience so they themselves are not the truth. But you may represent YOUR truth in this way as I may represent mine. It may ultimately be accurate that “my truth” and “your truth” are essentially the same despite the great differences in the words we might chose to express them.

As for me, I have come full circle, back to this equation but I will never be the same because the 3 letters that compose it I now see as one. The journey has been long and…poignant. It has been painful and difficult and challenging far beyond my expectation and yet it was precisely the pain and challenge that I sought. The book you hold is really for me. So from here on out, I will love my little boy and my old shaggy dog and I will laugh as often as I can. I will relish every frog and work on the spiral in my football toss and, I think, I will go and look again at the Mona Lisa. I will look for the truth behind the words as much as the truth that seems to be expressed in the words themselves. How ever long I have, I choose to live because I am already special. I will embrace love and truth and the simple elegant notion that today is all that we really have. If I am just me and I have no need to be anything “other than”, then my son will know this. In fact, it is already…known. I wrote this chapter as my son slept in my home for the first time in over a year. There are no coincidences.

I set out to change the world and asked the Universe to guide me. It did, through endless metaphors and coincidences that…couldn’t be. I discovered that the world is just …me. So I have changed…me.

Thank you Albert Einstein, you are beautiful.

I think I will become a comedienne…that sounds like a blast……

© 2009 Michael Nielson “A Novel Thought and the Art of Lucid Dreaming”

All Rights reserved. No part of this book, in part or in whole, may be

reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form or by any means,

electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any

information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing

from the publisher, except for brief quotations in critical articles, books

and reviews.